+1 on moving the discussion elsewhere Tim
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:27 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > <chair hat on> > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:27 PM Douglas E. Foster < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Scott, you misunderstand what this type of standard would look like. It >> would defines Use Cases that the device should address, with some >> acknowledgement to the tradeoffs between perceived risk and perceived >> difficulty of implementation. >> > > If what you're looking to do is drum up interest for working on this and, > if there's critical mass to do the work, getting something published, I > suggest any of the following: > > [email protected] (message format discussions) > [email protected] (SMTP discussions) > [email protected] (ART area general discussions) > [email protected] (once you have an actual proposal for work that needs a > home) > > ....possibly others, but those spring immediately to mind. However, I > believe Scott is correct that this work is not currently within our > charter, and thus it's off-topic for this list. I don't believe there's > any working group currently chartered to produce something like what's > being proposed here; EXTRA probably comes closest, and I think it's > off-topic there too. > > Some years ago Dave Crocker and I assembled RFC 6647 about greylisting, > which was an applicability statement over email in general that talked > about how to implement greylisting. You could follow that model if you > like, which merits standards track publication, though that means you'll > need to convince an AD to sponsor it or form a working group to develop it. > > If my co-chair concurs, then it's appropriate that this conversation be > moved elsewhere. > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
